Scientific consensus by itself doesn't actually mean a whole lot. After all, scientific consensus once said the universe was static in size. Even Einstein agreed...
Tired denialist talking point is tired. Modern theories of plate tectonics, size of the universe, ulcers etc etc replaced older, inferior theories. Let us know when all the Exxon funded scientists have come up with a superior model of climate that replaces all the models showing human involvement. Until then, feel free to test another theory that has overwhelming consensus, gravity, with your foot and an anvil.
is "are humans *affecting* the climate?" and that consensus starts to shrink one the question moves to "are humans the *primary* cause of the climate's change?"
Attempted use of red herring is red. Whether or not humans make up 49.9% or 50.1% of climate change is batshit irrelevant when the problem is humans changing climate faster than it can adapt.
Furthermore, that entire line of deflection, I mean reasoning, runs into one little problem: if it turns out that the sun (or volcanoes or Smug) is making up 20% of climate change that means humans need to do more to reduce their emissions, not less. But OTOH I do like it when trolls use self-defeating arguments.
No, you are not genuinely interested, you are concern trolling.
No, "calling out Randians on their BS" isn't concern trolling. Echoing denialist talking points that have been debunked for over a decade, that's trolling.
I am just skeptical of issues that are heavily politicized.
Intelligent Design is politicized. Going to answer that question yet, or dodge it a second time?
For example, your link points to a government funded organization. That's as biased as a study funded by exxon.
How's that? You mean "as biased" because western governments are all in the pockets of the oil industry, or "biased" as in "I"m a Randian moron spouting false equivalencies with zero basis in reality"?
A consensus doesn't mean shit when you publicly ostracize and dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion, thus discounting them and protecting your "consensus" status.
You mean your religion. Climate change denialism isn't based on science, it's based on faith. And yeah, you try bringing faith into a discussion of science, you're going to be mocked.
It was not a hurricane when it hit New York. Check your facts. It was classified as a tropical storm. The fact that it wasn't a hurricane is what led to the media throwing around the "super storm" bullshit. If it was a hurricane they would have run with "hurricane".
Pedant fail. If 100% of a hurricane has to be over 80 mph - and you skated past the part where Sandy was 1000 miles wide - then we never would have had any hurricanes over the course of human history.
Within the last 10 years, both the United States and Israel have been busted for faking intelligence for supporting military strikes. The IDF, all of three years ago, was caught dubbing hair on fire anti-semitic slurs onto tapes from the Freedom Flotilla.
And, of course, remember that the U.S. and Israel have already committed multiple acts of war upon Iran, whether by Stuxnet or assassinating their nuclear scientists.
Hell, I'm pro-legalization, but Obama's position does not constitutionally allow him to pick and choose which laws he will and will not enforce. Not that it's ever stopped him.
Aside from prosecutor discretion - which Obama has used to get off bankers and war criminals but persecute whisteblowers - the Controlled Substances Act allows the President to move marijuana off of Schedule I without having to go through Congress first.
So while Obama is a sycophant, coward, and hypocrite, he does actually have all the authority he needs to get the federal government to back off on marijuana.
The feds will flipflop on this as soon as Obama is out of office. Right now he's trying to save face and this is a really easy way for him to do it without having to spend more money. As soon as the new boss buys his way into office it'll be his (or hers, but really it'll be his) discretion to prosecute users in those states.
That's kinda hard to do once the genie is out of the bottle and facts are on the ground. Take gay military service: sure, the next president is free to kick gays out of the military again, since Obama's weak-sauce "repeal" had no anti-discrimination language.
But the next president will have to work against a 4 year long record of gay service. President Jeb Bush could also go back to persecuting marijuana users, but would still have to work against the fact on the ground that marijuana isn't a dangerous drug.
The next few years will demonstrate legal recreational use won't cause the Reefer Madness Armageddon. More people will recognize the stupidity of squandering billions on the prohibition/prison industry and a tipping point will be reached.
The problem is that many monied interests have figured out how to monetize marijuana prohibition. If they had done that in the 30's for alcohol, it would have taken another fifty years to repeal the 21st Amendment.
I did actually. I still wonder if she would have been better, specifically because the Clintons know how to handle congressional republicans fighting dirty.
So does Obama. He doesn't lose to Republicans, he takes a dive for them.
the press is willing to forget their claims against these sources. Anything for Obama, and the Democrats.
Hardly. The media is as pro war in 2013 as they were in 2003, or 1963. Or did we all forget that the "liberal" MSNBC canned their highest rated show when the host, Phil Donahue, questioned the invasion of Iraq?
The only difference now is the chunk of the Democratic party that would be having a hissy fit if it were Romney providing the same crap intelligence and claiming he could go to war without approval from Congress.
The president can order an attack without congressional approval (a cold war concession made long ago - if the Reds nuke us, we can nuke em back right away), but requires approval within 90 days IIRC.
Only if the U.S. is attacked first. Did Kennedy have the authority to "resolve" the Cuban Missile Crisis by ordering a massive nuclear strike on both Cuba and the Soviet fleet without a declaration of war? How about if Obama decides to weaken Assad's support by first bombing Iran, bombing any arms shipments from China, and sinking all the Russian ships in the Mediterranean, all without consulting Congress?
Take MJ off Schedule 1 and maybe he can stop living with pain 24/7!
The Controlled Substances Act allows the executive branch to reclassify drugs from Schedule 1 without going through Congress. Which means the hypocrite in chief would rather maintain the status quo.
Seriously, did you read the post your were replying to, since it referenced Waterworld as a delayed overbudget movie? In any case, movies and TV shows are better than games by necessity, because you cannot hire a cast and then pay them to sit on their thumbs while you screw around with the scope of your creation.
I am a games programmer working for a AAA company that produces a MMORPG, and I can tell you that the tools available (programming languages, runtime platforms, graphics libraries, etc) have become extremely bad. They have so many issues, from design problems to bugs to compatibility, that they have become the actual bottleneck in development.
So make better tools. Duh. TV and movie studios keep getting better/cheaper cameras, there's no reason why behemoths like EA can't make better design tools.
That and he's probably smart enough to know that the USA has no ulterior motive to go in
Of course the U.S. has ulterior motives: taking out an ally of Iran and foe of Israel. if the U.S. actually gave a shit about chemical weapons, it wouldn't have looked the other way when Saddam was gassing Iran in the 80's. Or more recently, when Israel was using phosphorous on Gaza.
If I had joined a group (the U.N. in this case) where thatâ(TM)s one of the rules of membership, yeah.
Right. Just like how the United States let pretty much anyone inspect all of it's top secret facilities after the wars on Vietnam and Iraq, where chemical weapons were used (agent orange, phosphorous, depleted uranium). And on a regular basis to ensure that the U.S. remains in compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which requires disarmament.
Assad is a brutal dictator who is cornered who made a calculated decision.
Then why didn't he make this "calculated decision" last year when the rebels were making massive territory gains? Why do it now when he's pushing the rebels back and the United States is looking for an excuse to bomb him?
Im sorry but how is this modded insightful?
Yes, common sense, awareness of recent history (mushroom clouds) and basic bullshit detecting abilities do inspire head-scratching from neocons and cruise missile liberals alike.
Maybe you can explain why the Syrian, not Saudi, regime has previously used chemical weapons on its people under conditions far less dangerous to the regime?
Maybe because he's not a moron? Your example is 30 years old. In 1982, a full six years before the U.S. helped Iraq gas Iran, Assad was all of 17 years old.
You are only offering bold declarations, not analysis.
I find your lack of self-awareness disturbing. Why don't you try going through 1-2-3-4 again, this time without your Dick Cheney hat.
1) He has nothing to gain by doing so 2) He has everything to lose by doing so 3) He is not a retard
Not to mention that the past 6 months have shown that Assad isn't exactly cornered, on the contrary, he has been pushing further and further back against the rebels.
Why would Assad give the United States and Israel the perfect excuse to bomb him if he's not desperate or a retard.
The President IS the commander of the military and if he decides to order a strike, it's his option. I would generally advise a president to get the consent of congress, but it is not required. He cannot declare war, but he controls the military and can do what he sees fit (mostly) with it.
Nonsense. And it's easy to see why, if you think about it for half a second.
Are you saying the President of the United States is free to drag the entire nation into wars, which may last decades, cost trillions of dollars, wars we could lose, without support from Congress? An American president can pick up a phone, order an atomic strike on Moscow, and start nuclear armageddon at his sole discretion? It's called separation of powers for a reason.
No. But "proof" that will satisfy everyone is very hard to come by.
Hand waving. So far our "evidence" comes from Doctors Without Borders, who have only heard about chemical attacks, not seen who has actually done it. The rest of your post is dependent on the assumption that yes, Assad is an idiot. Why use chemical weapons when he can kill the opposition with planes and bombs while the U.S. has been thundering about "red lines" for a year? If he was going to use chemical weapons out of desperation, why didn't he do it 6 months or a year ago when the rebels were making great gains?
The President has the power to attack without a declaration of war. Maybe you should read the entire constitution instead of hand picking partial sentences.
You first, it's called the separation of powers, moron. You really want the President to be able to start WWIII with a phone call by ordering strikes on Russia or China without a declaration of war from Congress?
Look, fascist, these are people who have already been cleared for release by both the Bush and Obama administrations. You know, people willing to trump up petty bullshit into lengthy sentences in Federal Pound Me In the Ass penitentiaries, when they aren't torturing or killing people with bombs. And they've cleared these people for release because they have no reason to hold them.
But other countries? Most wouldn't tell you that the prisoners exist.
"Most" countries aren't assassinating people on the other side of the planet from their own country, or have the largest number of prisoners, both per capita and in raw numbers.
Slashdot Mirror
Tired denialist talking point is tired. Modern theories of plate tectonics, size of the universe, ulcers etc etc replaced older, inferior theories. Let us know when all the Exxon funded scientists have come up with a superior model of climate that replaces all the models showing human involvement. Until then, feel free to test another theory that has overwhelming consensus, gravity, with your foot and an anvil.
Obvious conservative concern trolling is obvious.
Attempted use of red herring is red. Whether or not humans make up 49.9% or 50.1% of climate change is batshit irrelevant when the problem is humans changing climate faster than it can adapt.
Furthermore, that entire line of deflection, I mean reasoning, runs into one little problem: if it turns out that the sun (or volcanoes or Smug) is making up 20% of climate change that means humans need to do more to reduce their emissions, not less. But OTOH I do like it when trolls use self-defeating arguments.
No, "calling out Randians on their BS" isn't concern trolling. Echoing denialist talking points that have been debunked for over a decade, that's trolling.
Intelligent Design is politicized. Going to answer that question yet, or dodge it a second time?
How's that? You mean "as biased" because western governments are all in the pockets of the oil industry, or "biased" as in "I"m a Randian moron spouting false equivalencies with zero basis in reality"?
You mean your religion. Climate change denialism isn't based on science, it's based on faith. And yeah, you try bringing faith into a discussion of science, you're going to be mocked.
And deservedly so.
Pedant fail. If 100% of a hurricane has to be over 80 mph - and you skated past the part where Sandy was 1000 miles wide - then we never would have had any hurricanes over the course of human history.
It's called a summary article. Feel free to look up the source data and analysis if you want something more.
Heavens no, wouldn't want another "zomg you're comparing 'skeptics' to Holocaust deniers" that seems to pop up in every article on climate change.
Within the last 10 years, both the United States and Israel have been busted for faking intelligence for supporting military strikes. The IDF, all of three years ago, was caught dubbing hair on fire anti-semitic slurs onto tapes from the Freedom Flotilla.
And, of course, remember that the U.S. and Israel have already committed multiple acts of war upon Iran, whether by Stuxnet or assassinating their nuclear scientists.
Aside from prosecutor discretion - which Obama has used to get off bankers and war criminals but persecute whisteblowers - the Controlled Substances Act allows the President to move marijuana off of Schedule I without having to go through Congress first.
So while Obama is a sycophant, coward, and hypocrite, he does actually have all the authority he needs to get the federal government to back off on marijuana.
That's kinda hard to do once the genie is out of the bottle and facts are on the ground. Take gay military service: sure, the next president is free to kick gays out of the military again, since Obama's weak-sauce "repeal" had no anti-discrimination language.
But the next president will have to work against a 4 year long record of gay service. President Jeb Bush could also go back to persecuting marijuana users, but would still have to work against the fact on the ground that marijuana isn't a dangerous drug.
The problem is that many monied interests have figured out how to monetize marijuana prohibition. If they had done that in the 30's for alcohol, it would have taken another fifty years to repeal the 21st Amendment.
So does Obama. He doesn't lose to Republicans, he takes a dive for them.
Hardly. The media is as pro war in 2013 as they were in 2003, or 1963. Or did we all forget that the "liberal" MSNBC canned their highest rated show when the host, Phil Donahue, questioned the invasion of Iraq?
The only difference now is the chunk of the Democratic party that would be having a hissy fit if it were Romney providing the same crap intelligence and claiming he could go to war without approval from Congress.
Only if the U.S. is attacked first. Did Kennedy have the authority to "resolve" the Cuban Missile Crisis by ordering a massive nuclear strike on both Cuba and the Soviet fleet without a declaration of war? How about if Obama decides to weaken Assad's support by first bombing Iran, bombing any arms shipments from China, and sinking all the Russian ships in the Mediterranean, all without consulting Congress?
The Controlled Substances Act allows the executive branch to reclassify drugs from Schedule 1 without going through Congress. Which means the hypocrite in chief would rather maintain the status quo.
Seriously, did you read the post your were replying to, since it referenced Waterworld as a delayed overbudget movie? In any case, movies and TV shows are better than games by necessity, because you cannot hire a cast and then pay them to sit on their thumbs while you screw around with the scope of your creation.
So make better tools. Duh. TV and movie studios keep getting better/cheaper cameras, there's no reason why behemoths like EA can't make better design tools.
Of course the U.S. has ulterior motives: taking out an ally of Iran and foe of Israel. if the U.S. actually gave a shit about chemical weapons, it wouldn't have looked the other way when Saddam was gassing Iran in the 80's. Or more recently, when Israel was using phosphorous on Gaza.
Right. Just like how the United States let pretty much anyone inspect all of it's top secret facilities after the wars on Vietnam and Iraq, where chemical weapons were used (agent orange, phosphorous, depleted uranium). And on a regular basis to ensure that the U.S. remains in compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which requires disarmament.
Then why didn't he make this "calculated decision" last year when the rebels were making massive territory gains? Why do it now when he's pushing the rebels back and the United States is looking for an excuse to bomb him?
Yes, common sense, awareness of recent history (mushroom clouds) and basic bullshit detecting abilities do inspire head-scratching from neocons and cruise missile liberals alike.
Maybe because he's not a moron? Your example is 30 years old. In 1982, a full six years before the U.S. helped Iraq gas Iran, Assad was all of 17 years old.
I find your lack of self-awareness disturbing. Why don't you try going through 1-2-3-4 again, this time without your Dick Cheney hat.
Why would Assad give the United States and Israel the perfect excuse to bomb him if he's not desperate or a retard.
Nonsense. And it's easy to see why, if you think about it for half a second.
Are you saying the President of the United States is free to drag the entire nation into wars, which may last decades, cost trillions of dollars, wars we could lose, without support from Congress? An American president can pick up a phone, order an atomic strike on Moscow, and start nuclear armageddon at his sole discretion? It's called separation of powers for a reason.
Yep. If a cult of crazy people in Japan were able to make sarin gas and release it into a subway, so are the rebels in Syria.
Hand waving. So far our "evidence" comes from Doctors Without Borders, who have only heard about chemical attacks, not seen who has actually done it. The rest of your post is dependent on the assumption that yes, Assad is an idiot. Why use chemical weapons when he can kill the opposition with planes and bombs while the U.S. has been thundering about "red lines" for a year? If he was going to use chemical weapons out of desperation, why didn't he do it 6 months or a year ago when the rebels were making great gains?
You first, it's called the separation of powers, moron. You really want the President to be able to start WWIII with a phone call by ordering strikes on Russia or China without a declaration of war from Congress?
Look, fascist, these are people who have already been cleared for release by both the Bush and Obama administrations. You know, people willing to trump up petty bullshit into lengthy sentences in Federal Pound Me In the Ass penitentiaries, when they aren't torturing or killing people with bombs. And they've cleared these people for release because they have no reason to hold them.
"Most" countries aren't assassinating people on the other side of the planet from their own country, or have the largest number of prisoners, both per capita and in raw numbers.